Holding

Article 30(1A) requires a specific law—either a new enactment or an amendment to an existing law—governing the compulsory acquisition of property of minority educational institutions, rendering the general Land Acquisition Act inadequate.

Summary

The Society of St. Joseph's College, a religious minority educational institution, owned a building that the State sought to acquire under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The college filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking a declaration that Article 30(1A) of the Constitution bars the application of the general land‑acquisition law to minority institutions and that the acquisition notifications be quashed. The Supreme Court held that Article 30(1A) obliges Parliament or a State Legislature to enact a specific law—or amend an existing law—to govern the compulsory acquisition of property of minority educational institutions, ensuring that compensation does not restrict or abrogate the constitutional right. The existing Land Acquisition Act, being a general law, is therefore inadequate. However, the Court granted Parliament and the States until 31 May 2002 to amend the law; pending acquisitions will lapse if no amendment is made, and if amended, compensation will be determined under the new provisions. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and the civil appeal disposed.

Issues considered

Whether the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 apply to the compulsory acquisition of property of a minority educational institution under Article 30(1A).
Whether a specific law is required for such acquisition, and if the existing general law can be read to satisfy Article 30(1A).
What is the appropriate remedy for pending acquisitions pending legislative amendment.

Legislation cited

Constitution (Forty‑fourth Amendment) Act, 1978
Constitution of Indias. Article 300A, s. Article 30(1A)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 10, s. 4, s. 6, s. 9

Subjects

Minority educational institutionArticle 30Compulsory acquisitionLand acquisition lawCompensationConstitutional amendmentSpecific legislationProperty rights

Judgment

THE SOCIETY OF ST. JOSEPH'S COLLEGE A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 20, 2001

[S.P. BHARUCHA CJ., SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, B
N. SANTOSH HEDGE, S.N. VARIAVA AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.]

Constitution of India-Article 30(/A) inserted by Constitution (Forty
fourth Amendment) Act, 1978-Minority Educational institutions-Compul-
sory acquisition of pmperty-Provisiom of General Land Acquisition Act- C
Held, not adequate-There must be spec(fic provisions ensuring that the
amount of compensation fued do not in any way restrict or abrogate the
rights ~f such institutions guaranteed under Article 30-Requirement can be
satisfied even by enacting in the general law by amendment a provision
specially relating to acquisition o.f property o.f such institutions-Holvever,
D
Parliament and State Legislatures were granted time upto 31.5.2002 to make
necessary laws, .failin11 which pendin11 and incomplete acquisition ~f property
o.f minority educational institutions ·would lapse-Land f'..cquisition Act,
1894-Madras Reguisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act,
1956.
E
Petitioner was religious minority educational institution. A building
owned by petitioner within its college campus was leased out to the Post
and Telegraph Department. State Government issued a notice under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquiring the said
building. The petitioner unsuccessfully filed a writ petition and writ F
appeal before the High Conrt. Thereafter an award was passed for pay-
ment of certain compensation under the Act. Aggrieved, petitioner has
filed the present SLP and writ petition for a declaration that in view of
Article 30(1A) of the Constitution inserted by Constitution (Forty-fourth
Amendment) Act, 1978, the provisions of Land Acquisition Act did not G
apply to and empower the acquisiiiou of property of minority educational
institutions and for quashing the notifications issued under Sections 4 and
6 of the Act.

On behalf of petitioner, it was contended that Article 30 clause (IA)
of the Constitution required the Parliament or State Legislatures to make H
273
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A specific laws for acquiring the property of minority educational institu-
tions and thus after the introduction of clause (lA) the State could not act
under the general law as for example the Land Acquisition Act; that the
special law would itself have to acquire the property or specifically
authorise State by fixing the compensation amount by taking into consid-
B eration all the relevant factors and in the absence of such a special law, in
the instant case, the acquisition of petitioner's building was bad in law.

On behalf of respondent, it was contended that the provisions of a
statute that provides for the acquisition of property in general, would be
adequate for acquisition of property of minority educational institutions
C if the provisions of Article 30(1A) was read into the provisions of the
General Land Acquisition Act; that alternatively, a period of six months
time may be granted to enable Parliament to effect the necessary changes
in the Land Acquisition Act, and till such time pending and uncompleted
acquisitions should not be quashed.
D
Disposing of the matters, the Court

HELD 1.1. Article 30 clause (IA) requires the Parliament or State
Legislatures to make a specific law for compulsory acquisition of prop·
erty of minority educational institutions, the provisions of which should
E ensure that the amount payable to the educational institutions for the
acquisition of property is such as would not either restrict or abrogate the
rights guaranteed under Article 30. Necessarily, such a law must require
the taking into account of factors that do not come into play in the
determination of amounts payable in relation to the acquisition of the
F properties of others and are, therefore, not set out in the general acquisi-
tion statutes. Thus, the provisions of a statute that provides for acquisi·
lion of property in general, as for example, the Land Acquisition Act, are
not adequate for the compulsory acquisition of property of minority
educational institutions because what is payable thereunder is only com-
G pensation. (280-D·E·l'; 280-D]

1.2. It is not necessary that a statute should be enacted exclusively
for the compulsory acquisition of the property of minority educational
institutions, but it is necessary that in a law that provides, in general, for
the compulsory acquisition of property, there should be enacted, by amend·
H ment thereof, a provision that relates specifically to the acquisition of the
SOCIETY OF ST. JOSEPH'S COLLEGE V. u.o.r. [BHARUCHA, CJ.] 275

property of minority educational institutions. (279-H; 280-A] A
2. However, it is appropriate that Parliament and the State Legisla·
tores should be granted time upto 31.5.2002 to make such laws, if they so
• choose, and that pending and incompleted acquisitions of the properties
of minority educational institutions should lapse only if at the end of such
time the statutes under which the acquisitions have been commenced
B
have to been duly amended. On the other hand, if they are duly amended,
,
the amounts payable for such acquisitions shall be determined thereunder.
(280-G]

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 42 of 1985. C
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

WITH

C.A. No. 7751 of 2001. D
Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General, VA. Bodbe, K.R. Nambiar, M.N.
Varghese, Preetesh Kapur, Pankaj Kalra, Ms. Varuna Bhandari Gugnani, Ashok
Bhan, P. Parmeswaran, C.V. Subbe Rao for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E
BHARUCHA, CJ.

Writ Petition (C) No. 4211985

In this writ petition, the Court is called upon to interpret for the first time
F
the provisions of clause (IA) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Clause
(IA) was introduced in the Constitution by the Constitution (Forty-fourth
Amendment) Act, 1978.

Article 30, subsequent to the forty-fourth amendment, reads thus:
G
"30. Right of minorities to establish and administer educational insti-
tutions. -

( 1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have
the right to establish and administer educational institutions of
their choice. H
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A (IA) In making any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of
any property of an educational institution established and administered
by a minority, referred to in clause

(I) the State shall ensure that the amount fixed by or determined under
such law for the acquisition of such property is such as would not
B
restrict or abrogate the right guaranteed under that clause.

(2) The state shall no~ in granting aid to educational institutions,
discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it
is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or
c language."

The writ petitioner is a religious minority institution founded by the
members of the Society of Jesus, which is a religious congregation in the
Catholic Church. The petitioner has established and is administering an edu-
D cational institution called the St. Joseph's College in Tiruchirappally, Tamil
Nadu. The college was established more than 150 years ago. It has been
accorded autonomous status. by the University of Madras in April, 1978. Within
the campus of the college is a building owned by the petitioner. The said
building was let out in 1910 to the Post & Telegraph Department of the
Government of India and has since then been used as a Post Office. On 26th
E October, 1974 the petitioner wrote to the Senior Superintendent of Posts,
Tiruchirappally Division, seeking an enhancement of the rent of Rs. 830 per
month of the said building. There was no response. On 30th October, 1974 the
fourth respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirappally, issued to
the petitioner a notice under Section 3( 1) of the Madras Requisition and
F Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1956 to commence the acquisition
of the said building. On 11th December, 1974 the petitioner objected to such
action. Nothing happened over five years. Then, on 3rd May, 1979 a notifica-
tion was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect
of the said building. On 24th February, 1980, the petitioner filed objections to
G the proposed acquisition. On 17th February, 1982 the Section 6 notification
was gazetted. On 4th June, 1982 the fourth respondent issued to the petitioner
notices under Section 9(3) and Section 10 directing the petitioners to appear
before him in regard to their claim to compensation. On 9th September, 1982
the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court at Madras challenging the
H said acquisition. The writ petition was dismissed, and a writ appeal was filed
SOCIETY OF ST. JOSEPH'S COLLEGE v. U.0.1. [BHARUCHA, CJ.] 277

by the petitioner. The writ appeal was dismissed on 18th April, 1984. In the A
meantime, on 6th April, 1984 an award of Rs. 1,56,377 was made in favour
of the petitioner, being the amount payable to it upon the acquisition of the said
building. A Special Leave Petition was filed against the order of the writ appeal
and also this writ petition under Article 32. The writ petition seeks a declaration
that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act do not apply to and empower B
the acquisition of the properties of minority educational institutions and the
quashing of the notifications under Sections (4) and (6) of the Land Acquisition
Act in respect of the said building.

On behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Bobde submitted that a provision iden-
tical to clause (IA) of Article 30 was inserted by the same Constitution
c
Amendment Act which deleted Article 31 and Article 19(l}(f) from the Con-
stitution and added Article 300A. In his submission, the provision was inserted
because Parliament, acting as a constituent body, was aware to the fact that
while removing the right to property from the chapter on Fundamental Rights
in the Constitution, it was of the utmost importance in secular India to preserve
D
that right in a suitable form in relation to the property of minority educational
institutions. It was realised that the right of the minorities to establish and
administer educational institutions could be seriously undermined and even
abrogated by the expedient of acquiring the property of such educational
institutions under the Land Acquisition Act or any other law made by Parlia- E
ment or by a State legislature under Entry 42 of List III. It should be assumed
that the following was borne in mind by Parliament : The Land Acquisition Act
did not itself acquire any property but was an enabling law enabling the State
to acquire property in accordance with the procedure provided therein. Section
4 thereof froze the date of computing compensation and the award came years F
later. By the time compensation was received, perhaps after appeals up to the
stage of this Court, it represented only a fraction of the value of the property.
A law made for a particular property or for a class of properties was required
to provide only for an amount which might be fixed by such law or which
might be determined in accordance with such principles and given in such G
manner as might be specified in such law and no such law could be called in
question on the ground that the amount was not adequate or the whole or part
of such amount was to be given otherwise than in cash. Article 300A, which
had been added by the forty-fourth Amendment, only provided the safeguard
that the deprivation of property be done by the authority of law. Clause (IA) H
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A of Article 30 required Parliament or a State legislature to make a law for the
specific purpose of acquiring a specified property of a minority educational
institution. After the introduction of clause (IA), the State could not act under
the general law as, for example, the Land Acquisition Act. In making the
special law, Parliament and the State legislatures had to apply their mind to the
B situation of the particular educational institution whose property was being
acquired; as for example, to its financial condition, the number and nature of
its property, its location, the impact of the acquisition of the property on the
institution, the feasibility of replacing that property by a similarly situated
property and the like. All relevant factors had to be taken into account for
C fixing or providing for such amount as would ensure that the right under Article
30 was not restricted or abrogated. The special law would itself have to acquire
the property or specially authorise its acquisition by the State and fix the
compensation amount or provide for the determination thereof. Such amount
should be such that the educational institution could replace the acquired
D property with similar property or an asset of an equivalent real value. In the
absence of such a special law in the instant case, the acquisition of the said
building was bad in law.

The learned Attorney General pointed out that a pr'lvision identical to
clause (!A) of Article 30 had been first introduced in Article 31 by the
E Constitution (Twenty-fifth) Amendment Act, which had also altered the position
as to the payment of compensation for compulsory acquisition by requiring the
payment of an 'amount'. The learned Attorney General submitted that it was
settled law that the Constitution did not prohibit the acquisition of property
belonging to a minority educational institution but, by reason of the introduction
F of the aforementioned safeguard provision, the question might have to be
examined in a different light if such acquisition could be proved to be such as
to destroy property for even the survival of the educational institution. The
twenty-fifth amendment empowered the State inter a/ia to acquire property by
a law for a public purpose on payment of an amount instead of the payment
G of compensation and no such law could be called in question in any court on
the ground that the amount so fixed or determined was not adequate or that the
whole or any part thereof was to be given otherwise than in cash at the same
time. The twenty-fifth amendment carved out an exception in favour of minority
educational institutions by inserting the safeguard provision. The rationale for
H the safeguard provision was to preclude Parliament and the State legislatures
SOCIETY OF ST. JOSEPH'S COLLEGE v. U.O.L [BHARUCHA, CJ.] 279

from taking a cue from the twenty-fifth amendment and making a law which A
awarded only an amount and not compensation for the acquisition. In the
learned Attorney General's submission, it was only in respect of legislation
enacted after the twenty-fifth amendment that the State was required to ensure
that the amount fixed or determined under such law for the acquisition of the
property of a minority educational institution was such as would not restrict or B
abrogate the right guaranteed by Article 30. Property could be acquired prior
to the twenty-fifth amendment on payment of compensation on the principles
laid down in the acquisition statutes, for example, the Land Acquisition Act.
There was, therefore, no need to make any safeguard provision therein in
respect of minority education institutions. In the alternative, the learned Attorney
General submitted that the requirement of the safeguard provision should be
c
read into the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act so that that Act was in
conformity with the constitutional mandate. In the further alternative, the
learned Attorney General submitted that pending proceedings and acquisitions
effected under the Land Acquisition Act should not be quashed for such time
as the Court deemed reasonable to enable Parliament to effect the necessary
D
change in the Land Acquisition Act; he submitted that a period of six months
should be given for the purpose.

Article 30 is a part of the chapter on Fundamental Rights in the Consti-
tution. It guarantees a right to the minorities, religious and linguistic, to estab- E
lish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Clause (IA) thereof
requires that the State shall, in making a law that provides for the compulsory
acquisition of any property of a minority educational institution, ensure that the
amount, either fixed or determined under such law, that is payable to the
educational institution for the acquisition of its property is such as would not
F
either restrict or abrogate the right aforementioned. Clause (IA), therefore,
.. requires the State, that is to say, Parliament in the case of a Central legislature
or a State legislature in the case of State legislation, to make a specific law to
provide for the compulsory acquisition of the property of minority educational
institutions, the provisions of which law should ensure that the amount payable
to the educational institution for the acquisition of its property will not be such G
as will in any manner impair the functioning of the educational institution.

It is not necessary that a statute should be enacted exclusively for the
compulsory acquisition of the property of minority educational institutions, but
it is necessary that in a law that provides, in general, for the compulsory H
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A acquisition of property, there should be enacted, by amendment thereof, a
provision that relates specifically to the acquisition of the property of minority
educational institutions. That provision must ensure that the amount payable
for such acquisition will not in any manner impair the right conferred upon
the minorities by Article 30.
B
Plainly, Parliament in its constituent capacity apprehended that minor-
ity educational institutions could be compelled to close down or curtail their
activities by the expedient of acquiring their property and paying them
inadequate amounts in exchange. To obviate the violation of the right conferred
by Article 30 in this manner, Parliament introduced the safeguard provision in
c the Constitution, first in Article 31 and then in Article 30.

We cannot accept the submission of the learned Attorney General that
the provisions of a statute that provides for the acquisition of property in
general, as for example, the Land Acquisition Act, are adequate for the com-
D pulsory acquisition of the property of minority educational institutions because
what is payable thereunder is compensation, or that the provisions of clause
(IA) of Article 30 should be read into such statute. Clause (IA) clearly states
that after the date of its introduction there must be a law that specifically relates
to the compulsory acquisition of the property of minority educational institu-
E tions and that that law must make provisions that ensure that the amounts that
are fixed or determined thereunder for the acquisitions are such as do not
restrict or abrogate the right guaranteed under Article 30. Necessarily, such law
must require the taking into account of factors that do not come into play in
the determination of amounts payable in relation to the acquisition of the
properties of others and are, therefore, not set out in the general acquisition
F
statutes.

We think, however, that it is appropriate that Parliament and the State
legislatures should have time upto 3 lst May, 2002 to make such laws, if they
so choose, and that pending and uncompleted acquisitions of the properties
G of minority educational institutions should lapse only if at the end of such
time the statutes under which the acquisitions have been commenced have not
been duly amended. On the other hand, if they are duly amended, the amounts
payable for such acquisitions shall be determined thereunder.

This will apply as well to the acquisition of the said building of the
H
SOCIETY OF ST. JOSEPH'S COLLEGE v. U.0.1. [BHARUCHA. CJ.] 281
petitioner under the Land Acquisition Act. A

Order on the writ petition accordingly.

The Civil Appeal No. 7751 of 2001 shall stand disposed of in the above
terms.
B
No order as to costs.

S.V.K. Matters disposed of.

•

-